list_webhooks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, required permissions, or output behavior (e.g., returns a list). The minimal description leaves the agent with significant behavioral uncertainty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices informativeness; a slightly longer description could add value without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and minimal description, the tool's behavior is incomplete. It fails to describe the return format (e.g., list of webhook objects), pagination, or any filtering capabilities. For a simple list tool, the description should at least hint at the output structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly detail the projectId parameter, its type, or format. The phrase 'for a project' only implicitly suggests the parameter's role, which is insufficient to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'webhooks', and specifies the scope 'for a project', which distinguishes it from other webhook tools like create or delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_boards), but the unique parameter makes it clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_webhook for a single webhook, or list_webhook_event_types). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.